I'm not comparing it with Oddy but with Excelsior. It deserves a Lt Cmdr tactical more than the Excelsior. It's a newer ship and should be the one to deserve that BO layout, atleast in its Fleet version.
The rest I feel is fine with Galaxy, I use one myself despite of all the short coming and despite me owning a Regent as well. I just love the Galaxy and will continue to use it, none-the-less I hope that this matter gets looked into and fixed.
It is a modern ship still, atleast more than the Excelsior.
*sigh* You can lead a horse to water....
'Should be', 'deserves'?
Please define what the Galaxy class brings to Starfleet at this time in the gameworld that is not provided by the Odyssey class? The Excelsior not only was designed at a time when the Federation was facing conflict with the Klingon Empire (hense the combat focus of the ship), but also offers an optimal platform for the use of the Transwarp Drive engine. Thus, it has a reason for Starfleet to put the effort into modernizing the class and making sure it is up to the latest standards.
As to a 'modern' ship, I think everyone understands that the Galaxy is an old design by this point, replaced first by the Star Cruiser classes, then the Odyssey. It does a very good job of accomplishing the day-to-day missions Starfleet needs to do that don't require the utmost performance from a ship, and so they remain in construction as ships that are efficient and capable in their role as workhorse. However, that doesn't impart a great need to construct new models that will cost as much as an Odyssey to bring them up to those standards (though the Fleet and Galaxy-X versions do exist for the few occasions where the need exists). Indeed, of the two, it is the Excelsiors that are the more 'modern' ship, being that every single one is new construction (there are no Excelsiors in service without the modern Transwarp drive, so it is clear that any older ships of the class have been retired completely from service).
Understand that I don't deny that a place exists for a modernized Galaxy class ship (which is what the Galaxy-R and Galaxy-X are), but I think you are making the case for the ship as a fan-favorite as opposed to real reasons why such a ship would be built when there are plenty of reasons Starfleet would keep the ships as-is. Just because you want a Galaxy-class attack battleship that makes the Odyssey obsolete does not mean that is what should be.
The destruction of an entire fleet along with the Defiant in "The Changing Face of Evil" was pretty much the application of the same method on a larger scale and to be fair, the Galaxy class ships were no exception in this situation.
I always thought it was part of Nebula, not Galaxy. But maybe you are right.
Just because you want a Galaxy-class attack battleship that makes the Odyssey obsolete does not mean that is what should be.
To say the truth Odyssey should be less tactical and more engineering for the same reason Galaxy is portrayed as this. It it flagship of Federation, glorious display of it's tech and the exploration/diplomatic ship for crew, babies, dinners and stuff. With extensive ability to protect itself or serve and flagship in the times of need.
If I had to argue against lt.cmdr tac fo Galaxy I would put Sovereign instead as competitor on your place. Sovereign was the warship (Defiant was glorified frigate/destroyer at best) to combat the Borg. Best weapons, shields, passive defences etc and that constantly upgraded to keep the ship at the top. So making Galaxy (ship for peace times) better then newer design ment for war would be illogical.
But then you would need to stop and think: why the frack Excelsior was better warship (attack cruiser) then dedicated attack cruiser made to fight the Borg (far dangerous the Klingons were in times of Excelsior youth).
And the only explanation would be: because it sells better this way. Sovie was free, Excelsior was C-Store. Excelsior had to be better and TRIBBLE the logic. You need C-Store Sovie to get at least close to Exclesior level.
If fans are willing to pay, they should get tactical Galaxy. It's as much reason as making Excelsior better assault cruiser then the Assault Cruiser.
I always thought it was part of Nebula, not Galaxy. But maybe you are right.
I thought about that too, but the position of the engines doesn't fit.
The nacelles are too far away from the secondary hull for it to be an upside-up Nebula so it must be an upside-down Galaxy.
Besides if during the whole mess, they'd have learned the Galaxy class had been immune to the weapon (kinda weird since the Nebula is so closely-related) they'd have mentioned.
The Galaxy is clearly a tank ship...Picard knew this that's why whenever Worf recommended red alert Picard would say no...The girl could take the beating.:D
I always thought it was part of Nebula, not Galaxy. But maybe you are right.
To say the truth Odyssey should be less tactical and more engineering for the same reason Galaxy is portrayed as this. It it flagship of Federation, glorious display of it's tech and the exploration/diplomatic ship for crew, babies, dinners and stuff. With extensive ability to protect itself or serve and flagship in the times of need.
If I had to argue against lt.cmdr tac fo Galaxy I would put Sovereign instead as competitor on your place. Sovereign was the warship (Defiant was glorified frigate/destroyer at best) to combat the Borg. Best weapons, shields, passive defences etc and that constantly upgraded to keep the ship at the top. So making Galaxy (ship for peace times) better then newer design ment for war would be illogical.
But then you would need to stop and think: why the frack Excelsior was better warship (attack cruiser) then dedicated attack cruiser made to fight the Borg (far dangerous the Klingons were in times of Excelsior youth).
And the only explanation would be: because it sells better this way. Sovie was free, Excelsior was C-Store. Excelsior had to be better and TRIBBLE the logic. You need C-Store Sovie to get at least close to Exclesior level.
If fans are willing to pay, they should get tactical Galaxy. It's as much reason as making Excelsior better assault cruiser then the Assault Cruiser.
I don't know I agree with you, as I think there are as many people who love the Sovereign as love the Excelsior (maybe more). After all, they got the Regent put in the game, as well as a Fleet Assault Cruiser. If the desire for that ship weren't as strong, they wouldn't have been worth the time.
But let's do what you suggest, and answer the question: why the frack the Excelsior is a better warship (attack cruiser) than the dedicated attack cruiser made to fight the Borg? Well, what do the two ships compare to? Both were built for battle, at a time when the Federation faced the very real possibility of war. Both were built to function as exploration ships as well, though with the tradeoffs relative to 'normal' cruisers that common sense says you have to have (can't stuff tactical equipment where science equipment could go without losing science abilities). So what does the Excelsior have that the Sovereign does not?
Transwarp Drive.
What kind of situation do you think a Sovereign using standard warp drive would be in when facing a ship that uses Transwarp Drive tactically? Given that the difference between standard warp and transwarp speeds are probably similar to that between an NX-class ship and a Galaxy-class, where do you begin to calculate what such an engine could do? Instantly take the ship from one place to another (Picard Manuever-type, but all the time)? Displace weapons fire around the ship? Maybe just providing so much emergency power as to have almost unlimited shielding? Since we never saw a fully-functional Transwarp Excelsior on-screen, we can only hypothesize. All we can really say is that an Excelsior, using an inferior standard warp drive, could fight a Defiant to a standstill on phasers alone.
So, it is not at all unreasonable if the Devs of STO decide to reflect the advantages Transwarp Drive provide in making a ship with it superior in some respects to a ship that uses normal Warp Drive, yet is a later engineering design (not necessarily a newer ship).
Finally, let's realize that 'better' is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see the Regent is inferior to the Excelsior, but that's my viewpoint. Both will sell about equally, especially given that the Excelsior lacks any universal BOFF stations or the Wide Angle Torp. And if you want to compare the non-Z Store versions, we'll compare the Sovereign to....hmm, actually, there -is- no non-Z Store Excelsior, so I guess the Sovereign has something else to its advantage in STO.
P.S. And for the record, the Galaxy-class is still my all-time favorite ST ship. If I could get a Fleet Galaxy without needing a T4 shipyard, I'd be flying it all the time.
with the arrival of the Jem'hadar dreadnaught carrier more than ever the Galaxy X needs an upgrade.
I'm not saying make this ship equal to the JemDred but give it a commander tac station and the ability to launch at least one wing of fighters.
I'm not bothered with this saucer sep, just fix the boff stations.
As for the superlaser, keep the cooldown but make it a rapid fire beam like the one from the STNG episode. Say 15 second burst and link it to the consoles and boff powers such as beam overload.
You give us these perfectly reasonable upgrades and i'll be happy to dig out the old girl again.
Monkey see, Monkey do. Monkey flings Feathered Monkey poo...
If you read my post again. I'm not saying it is better than Oddysey. But it is a fact that since it was built with modern federation technologies, it is much better than Excelsior.
I'm not even talking about the Oddysey here, you're the one parading about one. And yes, like how you are biasing towards Oddysey maybe I am biased towards Galaxy in comparison with Excelsior.
Whatever reason Excelsior was built for, it was ages ago. it's old. And if you don't think Galaxy is a modern ship, then Excelsior isn't anywhere near the Galaxy at this point then. Read up more on Galaxy class before you even comment explaining that the Excelsior is more "modern" than a Galaxy lol.
Join www.UFPlanets.com
5 FED Fleets | 3 KDF Fleets - T5 Colony on both factions
It's funny how important the role of flagship is to you until the sovereign takes it over.
The writers wanting to blow up a galaxy does not lessen the importance of that battle. It in fact cements the occurrence as a technological marker. With all it's shield power being put into weapons the odyssey couldn't even cause an explosion on a bug, the defiant destroys bugs in one burst of pulse phasers. Quantum torpedo volleys destroyed chel grets in seconds, the galaxy had neither of these weapons.
Things changed in star fleet once the Borg came, they were allowed to make warships for the first time and the effects were vast and felt all over. The sovereign was covered in torpedo launchers, as was the Akira class. Almost all of the steamrunner and nova class phaser arrays are small. The size issue was clearly dealt with.
Also I'd love some canon info on the venture refit that does anything to actual power levels instead of adding a few arrays and maybe a shuttle bay.
they never once said any sovereign class was the flag ship, and they had several opportunities too say the E was. a heavy cruiser like the sovereign is no replacement for a ship 2.4 times its size, thats only 10 years older and has a 100+ year design lifetime. even by 2409 the age difference is trivial with major overhauls that have happened since launch.
the odyssey battle was all about full intelligence vs no intelligence, there was already changeling infiltrators in the federation by then. they had enough information about federation weapons and shields to be invulnerable to them, and to pierce federation shields utterly.
later when the dominion attacked DS9, that vorta guy commented on how federation weapons were harmless to them and that they could not defend them selves, he was shocked to see dominion ships being shot down and the stations shields holding. a lot had happened behind the scenes to prepare since the odyssey was destroyed.
the array size on the smaller ships is appropriate to their size and power output. and ships covered with smaller limited burst capable torp launchers was more of a packaging issue then anything. they did not have the space for 1 or 2 huge 10+ burst launchers like the galaxy had. overall, ships like the akira and sovereign matched what a galaxy could launch, but are still far behind in phaser output.
i don't know why everyone is so obsessed with the venture, it was a 1 off with some pointless small arrays added to the naccels were there wasn't even a blind spot to cover, or it was retconed completely when every cgi galaxy didn't have them.
If you read my post again. I'm not saying it is better than Oddysey. But it is a fact that since it was built with modern federation technologies, it is much better than Excelsior.
...
Whatever reason Excelsior was built for, it was ages ago. it's old. And if you don't think Galaxy is a modern ship, then Excelsior isn't anywhere near the Galaxy at this point then. Read up more on Galaxy class before you even comment explaining that the Excelsior is more "modern" than a Galaxy lol.
I would have to agree. Even though the Excelsior was designed either as a transwarp drive platform or as a cruiser to fight the Klingons, it doesn't matter, it's just way way too old to still be an effective ship. Example: even though pre-WWI British sailing ships were designed for true sea warfare compared to the current US Navy carriers (multi-mission profile), it doesn't mean those rickety old wooden boats should be anywhere near as effective, or even be in service, alongside the carriers. It just doesn't make sense.
Same thing applies here. Even though, yes, the Excelsior was part of many engagements in the Dominion War, it doesn't mean it should be on par with a ship that is about 70 years newer. Sure, you can reinforce the hull and add all the guns you want, but a refitted rickety old boat is still a rickety old boat.
The Galaxy-class should be in a position where it's a flexible multi-purpose ship, designed for exploration and colonial purposes, but still very much capable in combat - after all, it was the flagship when the class was first launched. Cryptic is butchering the ship by making it worse than the Excelsior in terms of its capabilities.
And sure, the transwarp abilities of the Excelsior may be a tactical advantage, but have we ever seen a warp maneuver in the most modern Trek (ie. 2370s+)? There is no combat advantage from warp drive anymore, since the drive is only intended for long range travel, and not a fraction-of-a-second piloting maneuvers wihin the same star system.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
theres a pretty good chance the excelsior transwarp project was a complete success, and is the reason they had to update the warp scale to the way it is by TNG.
I would have to agree. Even though the Excelsior was designed either as a transwarp drive platform or as a cruiser to fight the Klingons, it doesn't matter, it's just way way too old to still be an effective ship. Example: even though pre-WWI British sailing ships were designed for true sea warfare compared to the current US Navy carriers (multi-mission profile), it doesn't mean those rickety old wooden boats should be anywhere near as effective, or even be in service, alongside the carriers. It just doesn't make sense.
Same thing applies here. Even though, yes, the Excelsior was part of many engagements in the Dominion War, it doesn't mean it should be on par with a ship that is about 70 years newer. Sure, you can reinforce the hull and add all the guns you want, but a refitted rickety old boat is still a rickety old boat..
You would have a hard time selling that in light of the Iowa-class Battleships. Even 40 years after they were built, they outperformed ships that were built long after them, and even now cannot be matched by any ship afloat (except maybe the Russian battlecruisers that were built to saturate an entire fleet with missiles).
And as I have tried to state, time and time again, the Excelsiors we see in STO are -not- 70 years old. They are completely new ships using state-of-the-art systems and the most advanced FTL drive system in known space. Just because they are built off of designs laid down decades ago does not mean -they- are decades old (and the lack of any conventional warp drive versions confirms this).
Regardless, the discussion is about the Galaxy class, which -is- decades old and a design that has received similar upgrades to keep it current. The Galaxy-Retro, Galaxy-X, and Fleet Galaxy are all very capable ships that can tackle any scenerio in the game, so I don't see what the problem is, other than a 'grass is greener' complaint.
theres a pretty good chance the excelsior transwarp project was a complete success, and is the reason they had to update the warp scale to the way it is by TNG.
Actually, it is clearly stated that the Transwarp Drive project was a failure, and that it wasn't until the Voyager returned with data on Borg Transwarp conduits that the technology was restarted and perfected just before the STO timeframe.
To bring this back to its original intention, the Galaxy Class in STO is not the same ship which was the Enterprise-D. Therefore this entire game is not really Star Trek, just a space combat simulation with a Star Trek theme. The Galaxy Class will always be more famous and interesting then ANY ship Cryptic creates because its what makes Star Trek.
Cryptic are probably jealous of that fact and thought they would TRIBBLE over the ship as quick as they can.
Wow, obsessed much? :P
But seriously I hate to break it to you, but the Galaxy class is NOT the only ship that represents Star Trek; far from it. There's the Constitution (both original and TMP-and-beyond), Excelsior, Defiant, Intrepid, the NX... and there are many more.
And you say this game isn't ST simply because one class of ship isn't how you want it to be... talk about illogical And emotional
And like others have said, while the Enterprise-D was powerful in battle, it was the engineering and science aspects they focused on. Plus, more often than not, I'm sure the weapons systems were boosted by technobabble, so yeah XD
My two cents
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Actually, it is clearly stated that the Transwarp Drive project was a failure.
Oh? Is there an on screen episode or movie reference for this? I'd always assumed that there hadn't been, based off what was mentioned on this page here:
"The Excelsior transwarp experiment was a failure."
Although explicitly stated in the TNGTM, the Excelsior's transwarp was neither said to be a failure in "Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country" or in any later episode, nor do we know for sure that the ship didn't still have transwarp drive when Sulu began his mission in the Beta Quadrant in 2290. Actually, an equally valid assumption would be that what used to be "transwarp drive" on the original Excelsior (which may have nothing to do with Borg transwarp) was called just "warp drive" in the 24th century.
So the warp drive used from TNG onwards was in fact based off the Excelsior transwarp rather than the TOS standard warp? Very interesting. Yes, would account for the change in the warp factor system.
So the warp drive used from TNG onwards was in fact based off the Excelsior transwarp rather than the TOS standard warp? Very interesting. Yes, would account for the change in the warp factor system.
The wish is father to the thought...
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Oh? Is there an on screen episode or movie reference for this? I'd always assumed that there hadn't been, based off what was mentioned on this page here:
Besides the following from the entry of the Excelsior in STO...:
"The Excelsior class was a popular and reliable Starfleet ship used for almost a century. The first ship, the namesake U.S.S. Excelsior, was constructed in the 2280s and designed originally for a prototype of a Transwarp Drive (as seen in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock). Despite the failure of the drive, Starfleet recommissioned the Excelsior with a standard warp drive, and began producing more Excelsior-class ships to replace the aging Constitution-class."
...which is backed up by just about every article on the subject I have ever read....
"Despite the failure of the "Great Experiment," Starfleet forged ahead with employing the Excelsior design. After remaining in Earth Spacedock until at least 2287, the prototype Excelsior was subsequently recommissioned for active service by 2290. (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) " -Memory Alpha
"Tanswarp Drive: Experimental propulsion system that if successful would have enabled starships to reach higher speeds with greater efficiency.
The system was tested aboard the U.S.S. Excelsior in the 2280s before being deemed a failure and abandoned." -StarTrek.com
...indicates this is so. Also, the article cited as conjecture that the Transwarp Drive was not a failure did not so state that. All it said was that there was no on-screen announcement to this effect, and then conjectured itself that the warp drives used by starships later in the timeline were the result of the experiment.
Note that as both STO and the orginal FASA ST game had to go through Paramount (and now CBS) for approval on canon ship classes, that puts far more validity on their description than a single website that is really only a fan's personal page.
If you want a final 'on-screen' indication that the warp drives of 'modern' ships were not transwarp in nature, note that Voyager returned to the Alpha Quadrant after obtaining the ability to use Transwarp, which directly implies a marked difference from the warp drives of the ship in that return was impossible prior to that time. Also, you wouldn't have people discussing transwarp in that episode as though it were an important breakthrough if the ship was already using it.
I'm sorry, but the vast majority of proof is on the side of the initial Transwarp Drive being a failure. Even so, in the STO universe (the only one that matters for players of STO), it is clearly stated that this is a fact, not open to debate, so it really doesn't matter much anyway. That's the way history went in STO, so that's what we have to base any conversation within the STO universe upon (I don't think the Federation ever made ships of the Star Cruiser class, but in STO they did, so regardless of the lack of any mention of the Emissary class ship in any 'canonical' source, they -were- built as long as I am in STO).
Oh i forgot the really nice thing about galaxy. If you want to fly Fleet Venture, it will cost you 4000 ZEN, 500 per additional toon.
Full Odyssey pack with account wide unlock, costs 5000 ZEN
Also Galaxy model is full off bugs and asymetric artifacts. So all in all, great product :rolleyes:
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Well Warbird I really have to say your full of it. First off the Galaxy in lexicon is not a battleship never was never meant to be in Trek. It was a long duration exploration cruiser 10 year duration instead of the 5 year of the earlier Cruiser classes. If you watch NG it seems theres always something that engineering has to figure out to save the day so yes it is in line with the series. Defient SHOULD outgun a Galaxy it was built for one thing only combat against the Borg not exploration not diplomacy but war and war alone. If anything all the Federation tactical ships are under consoled as far as tactical goes with the exception of the Vesta's which have the right balence except imho they are short a forward weapon mount on the tactical version. Federation ships are not like the Klingon ships were they are all front line combat ships and as such consoled out that way and sacrifice shields for firepower and manuver. I play both sides and to be honest fed ships are far more survivable due to the bias to engineering slots and shield bonuses. I am leaving lock box ships out of this as they are wild cards same for Fleet just focusing on the basic ships. Fed ships reflect the very core of the Federation as in the famous intro "To seek out new life yada yada yada" they are intended to be general purpose ships not strictly warships but still able to get out of most situations far far from home. Yes the game reflects this in all of the ships and quite frankly if you just want to do combat build a klink if you want to play the game like trek universe then build a fed and enjoy the challenge. This is trek and if a tough fight in a Galaxy versus a Vorcha' isn't your idea of fair leave.
The problem is that the Odyssey was unprepared for the Dominion attack, not to mention that its Captain was an arrogant prick. The show producers even admitted that the Odyssey was chosen to be destroyed because the Galaxy Class had been a representation of the Engineering power of Starfleet and they wanted to show how far the Dominion were willing to go.
Now during the Dominion war, the Galaxy Class ships were refitted like any other vessel to include more firepower (the PROPER "Venture Refit" with Phaser Arrays on the Nacelles) and shields that included a resistance to Dominion attacks from data provided from the Runabouts following the Odyssey and the USS Defiant's first encounter with the Dominion.
The Galaxy is an extremely adaptable design in the series, functioning as an Exploration and Tactical Vessel in both TNG and DS9. Remember that the Enterprise was flagship of a fleet in both "Redemption" and "Chain of Command". The Odyssey incident highlighted one of the structural weaknesses of the Galaxy Class which was insufficient armor on the neck, which was corrected in the batch of ships released for the Dominion War.
Now the game should reflect the Galaxy's versatility as both a command, battleship and exploration vessel. Ideally the ship should have all Universal Console slots.
No, the Galaxy class was designed to be a Hilton Resort traveling through space. My guess is the TNG producers would have replaced it when they introduced the Borg but did not have the budget to do so.
Well Warbird I really have to say your full of it. First off the Galaxy in lexicon is not a battleship never was never meant to be in Trek. It was a long duration exploration cruiser 10 year duration instead of the 5 year of the earlier Cruiser classes. If you watch NG it seems theres always something that engineering has to figure out to save the day so yes it is in line with the series. Defient SHOULD outgun a Galaxy it was built for one thing only combat against the Borg not exploration not diplomacy but war and war alone. If anything all the Federation tactical ships are under consoled as far as tactical goes with the exception of the Vesta's which have the right balence except imho they are short a forward weapon mount on the tactical version. Federation ships are not like the Klingon ships were they are all front line combat ships and as such consoled out that way and sacrifice shields for firepower and manuver. I play both sides and to be honest fed ships are far more survivable due to the bias to engineering slots and shield bonuses. I am leaving lock box ships out of this as they are wild cards same for Fleet just focusing on the basic ships. Fed ships reflect the very core of the Federation as in the famous intro "To seek out new life yada yada yada" they are intended to be general purpose ships not strictly warships but still able to get out of most situations far far from home. Yes the game reflects this in all of the ships and quite frankly if you just want to do combat build a klink if you want to play the game like trek universe then build a fed and enjoy the challenge. This is trek and if a tough fight in a Galaxy versus a Vorcha' isn't your idea of fair leave.
No, the Galaxy class was designed to be a Hilton Resort traveling through space. My guess is the TNG producers would have replaced it when they introduced the Borg but did not have the budget to do so.
The real tragedy is that Federation starships are, as one author noted, 'the largest Swiss Army Knife in the galaxy', and all people are concerned with is how well they work as clubs.
First Cryptic screws the Galaxy with the Excelsior and now they TRIBBLE it more with the Ambassador. WTF?? I guess Cryptic really does have a beef with the Galaxy.
Since there seems to be much confusion about the real role and place of the Galaxy in the Federation Starfleet, let me pull out the TNG Tech Manual for officially licensed, and therefore counting as canon, works.
The Galaxy class starship represents Starfleet's most sophisticated achievement in multimission ship systems design.
Pursuant to Starfleet Exploration Directive 902.3, the following objectives have been established for the Galaxy Class Starship Development Project:
- Provide a mobile platform for a wide range of ongoing scientific and cultural research projects.
- Replace aging Ambassador and Oberth class starships as primary instruments of Starfleet's exploration programs.
- Provide autonomous capability for full execution of Federation policy option sin outlying areas.
- Incorporate recent advancements in warp powerplant technology and improved science instrumentation.
(Page 1,2)
"Replace aging Ambassadors". Ambassador-class ships, even by the time of the commissioning of the Galaxy class in the 2360s, were already getting a wee bit old. How do you think the Excelsiors are faring?
And it doesn't matter if the ship type was built yesterday or 70 years ago. The design is outdated, and it should not in any way be more capable than a ship design that is 70 years newer. Think about it the other way - why would a fleet spend resources and valuable time making a new design if the old one worked fine? Precisely why the Ambassador and the Galaxy-class ships were created. To replace the old designs.
This is precisely why Excelsiors should NOT be able to top Galaxy-class starships, no matter if it was in the 2360s when the first Galaxy-class ships were launched, or 2413.
The USS Enterprise is categorized as an Explorer, the largest starship in a classification that includes cruiser, cargo carrier, tanker, surveyor, and scout. (Page 5)
So the Galaxy-class (of which the Enterprise-D was a member of) was originally designed at launch to be a multi-purpose vehicle, that places emphasis on exploration, but is also very capable in attacking targets or defending itself. I'd anticipate that the current Galaxy-classes, after being refitted in the Dominion War, have increased defensive and offensive capabilities, while leaving the exploratory and scientific equipment unchanged, or even removed to allow the weapons/shield grids.
Tinkerstorm's opinion is wrong. The Enterprise-D is not a Hotel in Space, it's the flagship of the fleet, capable of a great many varieties of mission types, including combat.
Although the decision to model [the Enterprise-B] on the failed original experimental Excelsior was at the time controversial... (Page 4)
So it is, after all, failed.
By the way danqueller, that STOWiki article you quoted... I added that last part in myself, so I wouldn't use that to prove your point. (You can check the edit history for that page if you don't believe me.)
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
By the way danqueller, that STOWiki article you quoted... I added that last part in myself, so I wouldn't use that to prove your point. (You can check the edit history for that page if you don't believe me.)
Simpley put to anyone who is haveing trouble and does not know a lot about Trek ships heres the moral:Older ships are to not be more advanced the modern ones unless it has some sort of technilocal acheviment that someone recently put to use makeing it more advanced until it blows up and new ship is built to replace that one:D
also remember that it was filmed in late 80s-early 90s so they couldn't really make it fly around like u see them in ds9 so it so it didnt look as powerful in tng as it actually was
By the way danqueller, that STOWiki article you quoted... I added that last part in myself, so I wouldn't use that to prove your point. (You can check the edit history for that page if you don't believe me.)
Well, I generally don't use any Wiki as definitive proof, as they are only what people put into them. That is why I also cited StarTrek.com, which is a -bit- more reliable, as well as the description within STO as corroborating sources on the matter (as well as earlier sources that had to be approved by Paramount).
As I said, ultimately the only one that matters for the purposes of STO is the STO entry. While it may be debated outside the confines of the STO universe, within that universe it is stated point-blank what the outcomes were, and that's what we have to use while working within that universe, regardless what I or anyone else might want to be true.
Comments
*sigh* You can lead a horse to water....
'Should be', 'deserves'?
Please define what the Galaxy class brings to Starfleet at this time in the gameworld that is not provided by the Odyssey class? The Excelsior not only was designed at a time when the Federation was facing conflict with the Klingon Empire (hense the combat focus of the ship), but also offers an optimal platform for the use of the Transwarp Drive engine. Thus, it has a reason for Starfleet to put the effort into modernizing the class and making sure it is up to the latest standards.
As to a 'modern' ship, I think everyone understands that the Galaxy is an old design by this point, replaced first by the Star Cruiser classes, then the Odyssey. It does a very good job of accomplishing the day-to-day missions Starfleet needs to do that don't require the utmost performance from a ship, and so they remain in construction as ships that are efficient and capable in their role as workhorse. However, that doesn't impart a great need to construct new models that will cost as much as an Odyssey to bring them up to those standards (though the Fleet and Galaxy-X versions do exist for the few occasions where the need exists). Indeed, of the two, it is the Excelsiors that are the more 'modern' ship, being that every single one is new construction (there are no Excelsiors in service without the modern Transwarp drive, so it is clear that any older ships of the class have been retired completely from service).
Understand that I don't deny that a place exists for a modernized Galaxy class ship (which is what the Galaxy-R and Galaxy-X are), but I think you are making the case for the ship as a fan-favorite as opposed to real reasons why such a ship would be built when there are plenty of reasons Starfleet would keep the ships as-is. Just because you want a Galaxy-class attack battleship that makes the Odyssey obsolete does not mean that is what should be.
I always thought it was part of Nebula, not Galaxy. But maybe you are right.
To say the truth Odyssey should be less tactical and more engineering for the same reason Galaxy is portrayed as this. It it flagship of Federation, glorious display of it's tech and the exploration/diplomatic ship for crew, babies, dinners and stuff. With extensive ability to protect itself or serve and flagship in the times of need.
If I had to argue against lt.cmdr tac fo Galaxy I would put Sovereign instead as competitor on your place. Sovereign was the warship (Defiant was glorified frigate/destroyer at best) to combat the Borg. Best weapons, shields, passive defences etc and that constantly upgraded to keep the ship at the top. So making Galaxy (ship for peace times) better then newer design ment for war would be illogical.
But then you would need to stop and think: why the frack Excelsior was better warship (attack cruiser) then dedicated attack cruiser made to fight the Borg (far dangerous the Klingons were in times of Excelsior youth).
And the only explanation would be: because it sells better this way. Sovie was free, Excelsior was C-Store. Excelsior had to be better and TRIBBLE the logic. You need C-Store Sovie to get at least close to Exclesior level.
If fans are willing to pay, they should get tactical Galaxy. It's as much reason as making Excelsior better assault cruiser then the Assault Cruiser.
I thought about that too, but the position of the engines doesn't fit.
The nacelles are too far away from the secondary hull for it to be an upside-up Nebula so it must be an upside-down Galaxy.
Besides if during the whole mess, they'd have learned the Galaxy class had been immune to the weapon (kinda weird since the Nebula is so closely-related) they'd have mentioned.
I don't know I agree with you, as I think there are as many people who love the Sovereign as love the Excelsior (maybe more). After all, they got the Regent put in the game, as well as a Fleet Assault Cruiser. If the desire for that ship weren't as strong, they wouldn't have been worth the time.
But let's do what you suggest, and answer the question: why the frack the Excelsior is a better warship (attack cruiser) than the dedicated attack cruiser made to fight the Borg? Well, what do the two ships compare to? Both were built for battle, at a time when the Federation faced the very real possibility of war. Both were built to function as exploration ships as well, though with the tradeoffs relative to 'normal' cruisers that common sense says you have to have (can't stuff tactical equipment where science equipment could go without losing science abilities). So what does the Excelsior have that the Sovereign does not?
Transwarp Drive.
What kind of situation do you think a Sovereign using standard warp drive would be in when facing a ship that uses Transwarp Drive tactically? Given that the difference between standard warp and transwarp speeds are probably similar to that between an NX-class ship and a Galaxy-class, where do you begin to calculate what such an engine could do? Instantly take the ship from one place to another (Picard Manuever-type, but all the time)? Displace weapons fire around the ship? Maybe just providing so much emergency power as to have almost unlimited shielding? Since we never saw a fully-functional Transwarp Excelsior on-screen, we can only hypothesize. All we can really say is that an Excelsior, using an inferior standard warp drive, could fight a Defiant to a standstill on phasers alone.
So, it is not at all unreasonable if the Devs of STO decide to reflect the advantages Transwarp Drive provide in making a ship with it superior in some respects to a ship that uses normal Warp Drive, yet is a later engineering design (not necessarily a newer ship).
Finally, let's realize that 'better' is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see the Regent is inferior to the Excelsior, but that's my viewpoint. Both will sell about equally, especially given that the Excelsior lacks any universal BOFF stations or the Wide Angle Torp. And if you want to compare the non-Z Store versions, we'll compare the Sovereign to....hmm, actually, there -is- no non-Z Store Excelsior, so I guess the Sovereign has something else to its advantage in STO.
P.S. And for the record, the Galaxy-class is still my all-time favorite ST ship. If I could get a Fleet Galaxy without needing a T4 shipyard, I'd be flying it all the time.
I'm not saying make this ship equal to the JemDred but give it a commander tac station and the ability to launch at least one wing of fighters.
I'm not bothered with this saucer sep, just fix the boff stations.
As for the superlaser, keep the cooldown but make it a rapid fire beam like the one from the STNG episode. Say 15 second burst and link it to the consoles and boff powers such as beam overload.
You give us these perfectly reasonable upgrades and i'll be happy to dig out the old girl again.
I'm not even talking about the Oddysey here, you're the one parading about one. And yes, like how you are biasing towards Oddysey maybe I am biased towards Galaxy in comparison with Excelsior.
Whatever reason Excelsior was built for, it was ages ago. it's old. And if you don't think Galaxy is a modern ship, then Excelsior isn't anywhere near the Galaxy at this point then. Read up more on Galaxy class before you even comment explaining that the Excelsior is more "modern" than a Galaxy lol.
5 FED Fleets | 3 KDF Fleets - T5 Colony on both factions
they never once said any sovereign class was the flag ship, and they had several opportunities too say the E was. a heavy cruiser like the sovereign is no replacement for a ship 2.4 times its size, thats only 10 years older and has a 100+ year design lifetime. even by 2409 the age difference is trivial with major overhauls that have happened since launch.
the odyssey battle was all about full intelligence vs no intelligence, there was already changeling infiltrators in the federation by then. they had enough information about federation weapons and shields to be invulnerable to them, and to pierce federation shields utterly.
later when the dominion attacked DS9, that vorta guy commented on how federation weapons were harmless to them and that they could not defend them selves, he was shocked to see dominion ships being shot down and the stations shields holding. a lot had happened behind the scenes to prepare since the odyssey was destroyed.
the array size on the smaller ships is appropriate to their size and power output. and ships covered with smaller limited burst capable torp launchers was more of a packaging issue then anything. they did not have the space for 1 or 2 huge 10+ burst launchers like the galaxy had. overall, ships like the akira and sovereign matched what a galaxy could launch, but are still far behind in phaser output.
i don't know why everyone is so obsessed with the venture, it was a 1 off with some pointless small arrays added to the naccels were there wasn't even a blind spot to cover, or it was retconed completely when every cgi galaxy didn't have them.
I would have to agree. Even though the Excelsior was designed either as a transwarp drive platform or as a cruiser to fight the Klingons, it doesn't matter, it's just way way too old to still be an effective ship. Example: even though pre-WWI British sailing ships were designed for true sea warfare compared to the current US Navy carriers (multi-mission profile), it doesn't mean those rickety old wooden boats should be anywhere near as effective, or even be in service, alongside the carriers. It just doesn't make sense.
Same thing applies here. Even though, yes, the Excelsior was part of many engagements in the Dominion War, it doesn't mean it should be on par with a ship that is about 70 years newer. Sure, you can reinforce the hull and add all the guns you want, but a refitted rickety old boat is still a rickety old boat.
The Galaxy-class should be in a position where it's a flexible multi-purpose ship, designed for exploration and colonial purposes, but still very much capable in combat - after all, it was the flagship when the class was first launched. Cryptic is butchering the ship by making it worse than the Excelsior in terms of its capabilities.
And sure, the transwarp abilities of the Excelsior may be a tactical advantage, but have we ever seen a warp maneuver in the most modern Trek (ie. 2370s+)? There is no combat advantage from warp drive anymore, since the drive is only intended for long range travel, and not a fraction-of-a-second piloting maneuvers wihin the same star system.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
You would have a hard time selling that in light of the Iowa-class Battleships. Even 40 years after they were built, they outperformed ships that were built long after them, and even now cannot be matched by any ship afloat (except maybe the Russian battlecruisers that were built to saturate an entire fleet with missiles).
And as I have tried to state, time and time again, the Excelsiors we see in STO are -not- 70 years old. They are completely new ships using state-of-the-art systems and the most advanced FTL drive system in known space. Just because they are built off of designs laid down decades ago does not mean -they- are decades old (and the lack of any conventional warp drive versions confirms this).
Regardless, the discussion is about the Galaxy class, which -is- decades old and a design that has received similar upgrades to keep it current. The Galaxy-Retro, Galaxy-X, and Fleet Galaxy are all very capable ships that can tackle any scenerio in the game, so I don't see what the problem is, other than a 'grass is greener' complaint.
Actually, it is clearly stated that the Transwarp Drive project was a failure, and that it wasn't until the Voyager returned with data on Borg Transwarp conduits that the technology was restarted and perfected just before the STO timeframe.
But seriously I hate to break it to you, but the Galaxy class is NOT the only ship that represents Star Trek; far from it. There's the Constitution (both original and TMP-and-beyond), Excelsior, Defiant, Intrepid, the NX... and there are many more.
And you say this game isn't ST simply because one class of ship isn't how you want it to be... talk about illogical
And like others have said, while the Enterprise-D was powerful in battle, it was the engineering and science aspects they focused on. Plus, more often than not, I'm sure the weapons systems were boosted by technobabble, so yeah XD
My two cents
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Oh? Is there an on screen episode or movie reference for this? I'd always assumed that there hadn't been, based off what was mentioned on this page here:
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
The wish is father to the thought...
As is the case for the vast majority of fixes to gaping plot and canon holes in the ST franchise.
Besides the following from the entry of the Excelsior in STO...:
"The Excelsior class was a popular and reliable Starfleet ship used for almost a century. The first ship, the namesake U.S.S. Excelsior, was constructed in the 2280s and designed originally for a prototype of a Transwarp Drive (as seen in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock). Despite the failure of the drive, Starfleet recommissioned the Excelsior with a standard warp drive, and began producing more Excelsior-class ships to replace the aging Constitution-class."
...which is backed up by just about every article on the subject I have ever read....
"Despite the failure of the "Great Experiment," Starfleet forged ahead with employing the Excelsior design. After remaining in Earth Spacedock until at least 2287, the prototype Excelsior was subsequently recommissioned for active service by 2290. (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) " -Memory Alpha
"Tanswarp Drive: Experimental propulsion system that if successful would have enabled starships to reach higher speeds with greater efficiency.
The system was tested aboard the U.S.S. Excelsior in the 2280s before being deemed a failure and abandoned." -StarTrek.com
...indicates this is so. Also, the article cited as conjecture that the Transwarp Drive was not a failure did not so state that. All it said was that there was no on-screen announcement to this effect, and then conjectured itself that the warp drives used by starships later in the timeline were the result of the experiment.
Note that as both STO and the orginal FASA ST game had to go through Paramount (and now CBS) for approval on canon ship classes, that puts far more validity on their description than a single website that is really only a fan's personal page.
If you want a final 'on-screen' indication that the warp drives of 'modern' ships were not transwarp in nature, note that Voyager returned to the Alpha Quadrant after obtaining the ability to use Transwarp, which directly implies a marked difference from the warp drives of the ship in that return was impossible prior to that time. Also, you wouldn't have people discussing transwarp in that episode as though it were an important breakthrough if the ship was already using it.
I'm sorry, but the vast majority of proof is on the side of the initial Transwarp Drive being a failure. Even so, in the STO universe (the only one that matters for players of STO), it is clearly stated that this is a fact, not open to debate, so it really doesn't matter much anyway. That's the way history went in STO, so that's what we have to base any conversation within the STO universe upon (I don't think the Federation ever made ships of the Star Cruiser class, but in STO they did, so regardless of the lack of any mention of the Emissary class ship in any 'canonical' source, they -were- built as long as I am in STO).
Full Odyssey pack with account wide unlock, costs 5000 ZEN
Also Galaxy model is full off bugs and asymetric artifacts. So all in all, great product :rolleyes:
your head canon is wrong
The real tragedy is that Federation starships are, as one author noted, 'the largest Swiss Army Knife in the galaxy', and all people are concerned with is how well they work as clubs.
"Replace aging Ambassadors". Ambassador-class ships, even by the time of the commissioning of the Galaxy class in the 2360s, were already getting a wee bit old. How do you think the Excelsiors are faring?
And it doesn't matter if the ship type was built yesterday or 70 years ago. The design is outdated, and it should not in any way be more capable than a ship design that is 70 years newer. Think about it the other way - why would a fleet spend resources and valuable time making a new design if the old one worked fine? Precisely why the Ambassador and the Galaxy-class ships were created. To replace the old designs.
This is precisely why Excelsiors should NOT be able to top Galaxy-class starships, no matter if it was in the 2360s when the first Galaxy-class ships were launched, or 2413.
So the Galaxy-class (of which the Enterprise-D was a member of) was originally designed at launch to be a multi-purpose vehicle, that places emphasis on exploration, but is also very capable in attacking targets or defending itself. I'd anticipate that the current Galaxy-classes, after being refitted in the Dominion War, have increased defensive and offensive capabilities, while leaving the exploratory and scientific equipment unchanged, or even removed to allow the weapons/shield grids.
Tinkerstorm's opinion is wrong. The Enterprise-D is not a Hotel in Space, it's the flagship of the fleet, capable of a great many varieties of mission types, including combat.
Also to clarify the Transwarp drive failure: So it is, after all, failed.
By the way danqueller, that STOWiki article you quoted... I added that last part in myself, so I wouldn't use that to prove your point. (You can check the edit history for that page if you don't believe me.)
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
XD hahaha:)
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=528931&page=271
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
also remember that it was filmed in late 80s-early 90s so they couldn't really make it fly around like u see them in ds9 so it so it didnt look as powerful in tng as it actually was
Well, I generally don't use any Wiki as definitive proof, as they are only what people put into them. That is why I also cited StarTrek.com, which is a -bit- more reliable, as well as the description within STO as corroborating sources on the matter (as well as earlier sources that had to be approved by Paramount).
As I said, ultimately the only one that matters for the purposes of STO is the STO entry. While it may be debated outside the confines of the STO universe, within that universe it is stated point-blank what the outcomes were, and that's what we have to use while working within that universe, regardless what I or anyone else might want to be true.